[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       linux-kernel
Subject:    Re: [PATCH] IPv6: Don't assign a same IPv6 address on a same
From:       "David S. Miller" <davem () redhat ! com>
Date:       2003-03-31 19:05:51
[Download RAW message or body]

   From: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 <yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org>
   Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:34:51 +0900 (JST)

   In article <20030331.033524.114862210.yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org> (at Mon, 31 Mar 2003 03:35:24 +0900 \
(JST)), YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 <yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org> says:  
   > In article <20030330163656.GA18645@ferrara.linux.it> (at Sun, 30 Mar 2003 18:36:56 +0200), Simone \
Piunno <pioppo@ferrara.linux.it> says:  > 
   > >  - locking inside ipv6_add_addr() is simpler and more linear but
   > >    semantically wrong because you're unable to tell the user why his 
   > >    "ip addr add" failed.  E.g. you answer ENOBUFS instead of EEXIST.
   > 
   > We don't want to create duplicate address in any case.
   > ipv6_add_addr() IS right place.
   > And, we can return error code by using IS_ERR() etc.
   > I'll fix this.
   
   Here's the revised patch.

Applied to both 2.4.x and 2.5.x.

BTW, 2.4.x patch failed in two spots, one was author comment
which I easily fixed, second was in privacy code which I did not
apply yet to 2.4.x (I fixed this too, don't worry).

I do not want to put privacy code into 2.4.x until crypto is there.
I plan to put crypto lib into 2.4.22-pre1.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]